Collaborative writing (CW) is gaining more attention in L2 or English as a Foreign language settings. It creates opportunities for learners to produce a piece of text in the target language by using the language itself to communicate with one another, so learners may be benefited twofold (Storch, 2011). Though CW can be group work, it is usually administered in the form of pair work. It is not uncommon that learners in the same class may be at different language proficiency levels and may have varying attitudes towards pair work. This article seeks to answer how an L2 teacher could use collaborative writing activities for the benefits of learners of lower proficiency levels by referring to a small number of empirical studies. It is found that pairing pattern should be adjusted when the aim changes. If the aim is to improve the fluency of learners at a lower proficiency level, they should be paired with an equivalent in language competence. If the aim is to encourage pairs to produce more accurate texts, learners of lower language level should work with another learner who is at a higher language level and in the meantime is willing to cooperate. It is also found that different modalities, such as visual aids, can be introduced to maintain learners’ interest and that collaboration can be restricted to planning stage when a lesson is under time pressure.

Ying Chi. Exploring collaborative writing tasks from an L2 teacher’s perspective. International Journal of New Developments in Education (2024), Vol. 6, Issue 8: 227-234. https://doi.org/10.25236/IJNDE.2024.060836.

[1] Brooks, L., & Swain, M. (2009). Languaging in collaborative writing: Creation of and response to expertise. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 58–89). New York, NY: Routledge.

[2] Cambridge English. (2021, January). About the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Retrieved from https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/exams-and-tests/cefr/

[3] de Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51-68.

[4] Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 211-234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807086288

[5] Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1-26). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

[6] Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 55-81.

[7] McDonough, K., De Vleeschauwer, J., & Crawford, W. (2018). Comparing the quality of collaborative writing, collaborative prewriting, and individual texts in a Thai EFL context. System, 74, 109-120.

[8] O'Sullivan, B. (2002). Learner acquaintanceship and oral proficiency test pair-task performance. Language Testing, 19(3), 277-295. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt205oa

[9] Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary development. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 174–200). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

[10] Scrivener, J. (2011). Learning teaching: The essential guide to English language teaching (3rd ed.). London, UK: Macmillan Education.

[11] Shin, S.-Y., Lidster, R., Sabraw, S., & Yeager, R. (2016). The effects of L2 proficiency differences in pairs on idea units in a collaborative text reconstruction task. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 366–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814567888

[12] Snoder, P., & Reynolds, B. L. (2019). How dictogloss can facilitate collocation learning in ELT. ELT Journal, 73(1), 41-50.

[13] Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119-158.

[14] Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 143-159.

[15] Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17(2), 95-114.

[16] Storch, N. (2011). Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 275-288. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000079

[17] Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Multilingual Matters.

[18] Storch, N., & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 31-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812457530

[19] Sun, C.-H. (2017). The value of picture-book reading-based collaborative output activities for vocabulary retention. Language Teaching Research, 21(1), 96–117. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1362168816655364

[20] Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.

[21] Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

[22] Villarreal, I., & Gil-Sarratea, N. (2020). The effect of collaborative writing in an EFL secondary setting. Language Teaching Research, 24(6), 874–897. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819829017

[23] Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121-142. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880607074599

[24] Webb, S., & Nation, P. (2017). How vocabulary is learned. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

[25] Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-466. https://doi.org/10. 1177/026553 2209104670

[26] Williams, D., Cunningham, S., & Moor, P. (2013). Cutting edge intermediate third edition teacher’s resource book. Essex, UK: Pearson Education Limited.